It's been banned as Americans (its a UK ad) complained it was offensive to gay people. how is this offensive to anyone? There's no way this ad had a go at gay people nor is there anyway any intelligent person could even suggest there is one.
"...[T]owards the end of the proceedings, the Judge closed the case without allowing Barbara [Tucker] to sum up, and the case was adjourned for the judge to consider his verdict. What came out however, was a bombshell for SOCPA. Barbara has been requesting the prosecution case summary for four months prior to this hearing, and only finally received it in Court yesterday [24th July]. Hidden amongst pages and pages of print about the incident was the following remarkable statement: 'OWING TO CHANGES IN SOCPA LEGISLATION THE UNAUTHORISED DEMONSTRATION OFFENCES CANNOT BE PROCEEDED WITH'"
Although SOCPA is still on the statute books - and can therefore still be enforced at any time - it seems like the CPS have been given orders not to proceed with any prosecutions over "demonstrations" within the 1 km radius, so the law is effectively dead.
Tim said he's thinking of going over to Westminster to try it out. I'll do the same.
Via Ministry of Truth comes this that's been mentioned on the Wardman Wire about something published by a British cartoonist named Dave Walker (I've been trying to get my head around it and it seems to relate to the publication of bankruptcy proceedings against a British chain of Christian bookshops in the US):
The idea is very simple: on 5th November at 12:00 p.m. (advance notice!) we meet at Trafalgar Square and go for a nice leisurely walk down Whitehall to Parliament Square and back. Some people may be going dressed up as Guy Fawkes, some may not.
Broadcaster ITV Central was fined £25,000 for contempt of court after it ran a news item about a trial which was about to start - and included details of a defendant's previous conviction for murder.
The court - Lord Justice Pill, sitting with Mr Justice King - heard that ITV Central broadcast a 23-second long report on a regional television programme which referred to a trial involving five men which was due to start later that day. The report said that one of the accused had been convicted of murder and was serving a jail sentence.
The item was repeated on two late morning news bulletins.
The trial judge postponed the proceedings after details of the report were drawn to his attention.
ITV Central told the court that it accepted that a basic and serious aberrational error occurred through publication of the report, but argued in mitigation that regard should be had to the fact that the error of revealing an accused's antecedents before trial was so "blindingly obvious" that it had not anticipated that a trained journalist preparing a news report for broadcast would make such an error.
So they're saying that they're too stupid and/or incompetent for it to be classed as being in contempt of Court?
PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL Mainstream Publishing Company (Edinburgh) Limited 7 Albany Street Edinburgh Scotland EH13UG
BY POST AND FAX: XXXX XXX XXXX OurRef: SMS/JXR/ww/A131/3 ON THE RECORD NOT FOR PUBLICATION 08 July 2008
The Road to Samarkand - Craig Murray
We represent Lieutenant-Colonel Tim Spicer OBE, C.E.O. of Aegis Defence Services Limited (”Aegis”).
We are instructed to write to you with regard to ‘THE ROAD TO SAMARKAND- INTRIGUE, CORRUPTION AND DIRTY DIPLOMACY’ (”the Book”) written by Craig Murray and due to be published in September 2008 by you (http://www.rbooks.co.uk/search results.aspx) to be sold in England and Wales by Random House Sales Department.
We have reason to believe that the Book may contain serious, untrue and damaging defamatory allegations about our client.
Please confirm by return whether the Book is due to be published in England and Wales in September 2008 and if so, the exact date. Please also confirm whether the Book is due to be published in any other jurisdiction, setting out each jurisdiction, together with the publication date and publisher concerned in each case.
Importantly, we require you to confirm by return whether or not the Book contains any reference to our client, and if so, we require you to set out in full each and every reference to our client in its entirety to give our client the opportunity to take legal advice and to respond to any allegations in good time prior to publication.
Any widespread publication of the Book containing defamatory allegations concerning our client would be deeply damaging to our client’s personal and professional reputations and would cause him profound distress and anxiety. We remind you that you would be responsible for that damage and any subsequent republication of the allegations. We also put you on notice that you will be liable for any special damage or loss suffered by our client as a result of the Book and we reserve all our client’s rights in this regard.
We note from your website http://www.mainstreampublishing.com/news_current.html that Mr Murray is due to speak about the Book at a ‘Mainstream author event at the Edinburgh International Book Festival’ entitled ‘Lived Lives’ on 12th August 2008 at 4.30pm in the RBS Main Theatre, Edinburgh. We hereby put both you and Mr Murray on notice that all our client’s rights are reserved in relation to any defamatory comments or publications made by you or Mr Murray in relation to that event.
Please immediately take into your possession all drafts of the Book pre-publication, all notes, emails, correspondence, memos, images and other documents relevant to the publication of this Book, and preserve them safely pending the outcome of this dispute. They will need to be disclosed in due course if litigation has to be commenced. Also, you will need to disclose the financial arrangements for the sale and licence of the Book to other publications.
In the circumstances, we require that you confirm immediately that you agree to undertake on behalf of Mainstream Publishing Company (Edinburgh) Limited not to publish any libels regarding our client in any editions of the Book or at all.
We require the above undertaking by 4pm on Friday 11h July 2008, failing which we will have no option but to advise our client with regard to making applications to the High Court for an injunction to restrain publication and/or for pre-action disclosure. You are on notice that we will seek to recover the costs of any necessary applications from you.
We await your response by return. In the meantime all our client’s rights are reserved, including the right to issue proceedings against you without further notice.
SCHILLINGS cc. Craig Murray Esq.
As MoT points out, to demand the full thing in advance, is just a fishing expedition, i.e. "Let's see what we can find, there must be summat we can use"... Spread the word.
During the campaign for the Supreme Overlord Mayor of London, Boris Johnson's manifesto included promises to make changes to the Congestion Charge (CC).
He said he'd launch a consultation into the extension of the CC into Notting Hill, Kensington and Chelsea, i.e. the posh and rich western bits of central London, as well as scrapping a planned increase of the charge to £25 for the most polluting vehicles and would also have scrapped the resident's discount for driving the most polluting cars.
Red Ken had already put people on notice about the £25 charge, which was due to come into force yesterday, but Boris scrapped it. I don't generally have a problem with a politician sticking to their promises (ID cards excluded); however, I have serious problem with how he's gone about it.
Porsche had launched a legal action against TfL and Red Ken over the £25 charge. Which was due to come to Court; however, due to Boris's decision, it now won't happen and the taxpayer also has to give them, or more accurately their lawyers, £400,000 in legal costs. What's worse it that it creates an appalling precident: if a company complains that something will affect their profitability, e.g. the sales of polluting sports cars, the authorities, instead of seeing them in Court and letting a judge decide, will just cave in! This could be used by companies who feel they're being victimised by employment, pensions or health 'n' safety laws.
Thanks to London Connections, a photo of their plans is on t'Internet. If you look closely above the key, you'll see the outline of a further station which London Connections says is where Vauxhall Sainsbury's is located! From the map, it looks like it would be quite easy to extend it further to somewhere in-between the existing Battersea train stations, making one big station.
They plan to have the thing re-opened by 2015. Let's hope they do.